Virtually Disabled

Legal Information:

Plaintiff: Alexander Stern

Defendants: Sony, Sony Online Entertainment, and Sony Computer Entertainment America

Allegations: Unlike other entertainment corporations including Blizzard entertainment, Sony refuses to accommodate their video games in a way which would allow visually impaired players the same opportunities as Normal Players within the gaming world. In doing these actions they are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA states "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." Since the Plaintiff requested there be changes to the games created by Sony and Sony declines these requests, the plaintiff alleges that Sony is in violation of the act.

Status: Dismissed by U.S. District Court for the Central District of California due to the fact that Sony is not a 'place of public accommodation' so it does not fall under the Act.

Bloggers Bit:
Some may find this lawsuit extreme and with them I slightly agree. I understand the point in which Stern is trying to make. Why can’t the visually impaired enjoy the ability to play video games? Just for the record the visually impaired also does not just mean complete blindness, it can constitute anyone with some kind of visual impairment. Although it might seem like a stretch to try and make accommodations to a media which is almost completely visually driven, it has been done before in the past. Instances in which accommodations have been made are seen in such games as Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, which has modified itself in a way to allow outside aids and in the PC game Terraformers which had developed different audio aids to help the visually impaired. This type of aid is not anything new to the gaming worlds, Sony is just not being the most accommodating to all individuals, which is surprising considering if they were accommodating they would be able to sell their game to a wider audience.

Where Stern goes wrong in his suit is not the intended outcome of inclusion of individuals with disabilities but the statute in which he hangs his hat. The Judge was right in the fact that Sony is a privately owned company and is not a place of public accommodation. Because of this, it does not fall under the state of the ADA. Hopefully this litigation brings to light the fact that Sony is unaccommodating and will urge a change in the company’s programming. It is all up to the future to tell. Good try Stern but you just fell short.

Photo used with a creative commons license
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sybrenstuvel/4097307747/sizes/m/in/photostream/